Methods

Although the overall visitor study involved a sample size of nearly 1300, only a subset of these (n=518) included specific questions related to visitor understanding of natural history museums. Surveys were conducted in person with visitors at the Natural History Museum over the span of 2 months (April–May). Visitors were chosen randomly by trained data collectors and asked if they might be interested in answering a few questions that would help future museum development. Rejections to participation were minimal overall. Each survey lasted between 10 and 15 minutes, and included questions related to demographics, prior experiences, and motivations for visiting, in addition to questions related to their understanding of natural history museums.

Data was tabulated to reveal descriptive statistics, and cross tabs were conducted to examine possible differences within several different subpopulations (including frequent/non-frequent visitors and college-graduates and non-graduates).

 

Results

Why do they come?

All visitors participating in the survey (n=1284) were asked to describe what their main reason for visiting the Museum was that day. This was asked as an open-ended question. While the literature suggests that visitors go to museums for a variety of reasons, this question asked visitors to prioritize their objectives by describing the main reason. For cases when respondents provided more than one reason, they were prompted to choose which they felt was more important. Table 1 shows the top reasons for visitors at this natural history museum.

The results support the idea that visitors have a variety of reasons for going to a natural museum, and suggest that for this museum, seeing a particular exhibit and spending time with the family were the most common reasons. (Data from a more recent study suggest that the number of visitors coming to see a particular exhibit may have been influenced by the presence of a special temporary exhibition that ran during the length of the original survey administration—in the recent study, spending time with the family was ranked highest overall.) Less than ten percent of those interviewed indicated that the main reason for coming to the Museum was to learn something new. This does not suggest that people did not come to the Museum to learn, but rather that learning was not necessarily their primary reason for the visit. In fact, it is quite possible that learning is seen as an implicit goal or natural result of visiting a museum. Nevertheless, for those visitors interviewed, the results suggest that only a fraction came to the Museum with explicit plans for learning something new.

Table 1. Main reasons for visiting the Museum

Reason	Percentage (n=1284)
See a specific exhibition	40%
Do something as a family	19%
Learning experience	9%
Other reasons	8%
Class assignment	6%
Social outing with friends	5%
Enjoy looking at exhibits and artifacts	3%
Show guests to the Museum	2%
Visiting Los Angeles (tourist)	2%
Was in the neighborhood	2%
Friends/family told me to come	1%

 

Where do they learn?

A randomly selected subgroup of those participating in the study (n=518) was asked several additional questions related to the nature of natural history museums. These visitors were first asked to consider where they might go to learn about something using the hypothetical question  “Let’s say you heard about or read a news story about science or nature. If you had questions about the topic or wanted to find out more, where might you turn?” Respondents were encouraged to describe all possible sources, and none, including the Museum itself, were given as examples. The question was then repeated, substituting “culture and history” for “science and nature,” as the Museum where the study took place includes cultural artifact collections. The results, shown in Tables 2 and 3, indicate that the visitors were much more likely to refer to the Internet or a library as a place where they could learn more. The Natural History Museum was mentioned, but in only 16% to 18% of the cases. 

Table 2. Information sources for science, as identified by visitors

Table 3. Information sources for history, as identified by visitors 

The results of these questions were then re-examined using demographic information to determine whether different categories of visitors were more or less likely to respond the same way. One such category was developed based on visit frequency. “Frequent visitors” were defined as those who had visited the Museum at least once within the past 2 years while “infrequent visitors” were identified as those who had never visited the Museum before, or hadn’t done so for over two years. Sixty percent of the visitors surveyed for this study were classified as “infrequent visitors.” Visitors were also categorized according to their schooling—those who had completed a 4-year college (roughly 60% for this subpopulation) and those who had not (40%).

Outcomes of the analysis according to these subgroups are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The results for the two groups are not very different, although they do suggest that a slightly larger number of frequent visitors would consider the Museum as a place where they would go to learn more about science or nature. It certainly seems reasonable to expect frequent museum-goers to see the Museum as a source of information. Yet although chi-square analysis suggests that this is a statistically significant difference (χ²(1, n=515)=3.877, p=0.049) between frequent and infrequent visitor recognition of the museum as an information source, the percentages are still quite low—less than 25%.

 

Table 4. Perception of Museum as a learning resource by visit frequency

	Places to learn more about science and nature				Places to learn more about history and culture
	Natural history museum		Internet		Natural history museum		Internet
	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Infrequent visitor (n=310)	47	15	249	80	48	16	245	79
Frequent visitor (n=205)	45	22	168	82	37	18	154	75

 

When examining the data according to schooling, it seems that those with complete bachelor’s degrees were much more likely to cite the Internet as a resource for learning more about science (χ²(1, n=489)=30.37, p=0.000) or history (χ²(1, n=489)=12.97, p=0.005), compared to those without degrees—chi square analysis suggests that these differences are statistically significant (see Table 5.) Recall the overall analysis suggested that the Internet was the most commonly cited resource. Furthermore, it seems that those without bachelor’s degrees were slightly more likely to regard the museum as a source for learning more about science or history, although this difference was only found to be statistically significant for learning about history or culture (χ²(1, n=489)=5.658, p=0.017).

One might interpret these findings in terms of a technology gap—those with more schooling are more likely to be familiar with technology such as the Internet, while those with less schooling would be more traditional means of gathering information, which might even include going to the museum. Despite this analysis, the numbers are still small it seems that only a fraction of those surveyed would turn to this natural history museum to learn more about science, nature, culture, or history.

 

Table 5. Perception of Museum as a learning resource by visitor schooling

	Places to learn more about Science and nature				Places to learn more about History and culture
	Natural history museum		Internet		Natural history museum		Internet
	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Non degree-holders (n=179)	35	20	121	68	37	21	117	65
Degree-holders (n=310)	48	16	274	88	40	13	267	86

 

The nature of natural history museums

The final set of questions regarding the nature of natural history museums referred to visitor awareness of the museum as a research institution with an extensive collection much larger than what was currently displayed. When asked whether they knew that scientific research was conducted at the museum, only 42% claimed that they already knew that, with 55% indicated that they weren’t sure or didn’t know (Figure 1). When similarly asked about history or cultural research, only about one third of the visitors (34%) indicated that they knew this took place at the museum (Figure 2). An even smaller percentage of those surveyed (19%) claimed to be aware of the fact that only a small number of pieces from the Museum’s collection were actually on display (Figure 3). These results suggest that visitors may not recognize the features that make natural history museums unique from other places of informal science learning.

 

Figure 1. Visitor awareness of science research at the Natural History Museum (n=518)

 

Figure 2. Visitor awareness of history or cultural research at the Natural History Museum (n=518)

 

Figure 3. Visitor awareness that only a small percentage of collection is
on display within the Natural History Museum (n=518)

 

When examining these results according to visitor frequency, we find that more frequent visitors were more likely to recognize the role of research or the magnitude of collections within the museum compared to infrequent visitors (Table 6). As before, we might expect that those who frequent the museum would be more likely to be knowledgeable about what goes on there. Although these differences were found to be statistically significant for both questions regarding research (science [χ²(1, n=502)=15.67, p=0.000] and history [χ²(1, n=512)=6.543, p=0.011]), still barely half of these frequent visitors claimed that they knew scientific research was done at the museum. Even with frequent visitors, there appears to be a knowledge gap as to what the role of a natural history museum is.

 

 Table 6. Awareness of museum characteristics by visitor frequency

Implications

The findings of this study suggest a real tension between the traditional perspective of a natural history museum, often shared by curators and others within the institution, and the visitor’s perspective. Although these museums were founded on collections and those who studied those collections to generate new knowledge, the audience for this natural history museum did not seem to think of the museum in these terms. While evidence suggests that those who frequented the museum more often may have been more aware of this traditional perspective, these visitors still represent only a small portion of the museum’s total audience.

This conflict between a collections-focus and a visitor-focus is not easily resolved. It requires some revision of a conception that has existed for hundreds of years. The very nature of the natural history museum suggests that objects are at the center of the institution and provide the basis for knowledge. Yet what we know about visitors (and learners) in free-choice settings like museums suggests that although these particular objects may capture visitor interest, the prior experiences of the visitor, their interactions with others, and the physical setting all influence what knowledge is taken away. Furthermore, as evidenced here, visitors may not see learning as the principal focus or primary reason for their visit.

Given the results of this study, one might then question the importance of emphasizing the museum as an informational resource. This is not to devalue the learning opportunities inherent within a museum, or disregard the ability for the museum to play this role, but rather to recognize that specific information-seekers may be more likely to turn to books or, more commonly, the Internet to find out more. With the Internet as the most frequently cited mode for “learning more,” it seems that natural history museums wishing to maintain a strong information-dissemination mission might consider the advantages of building a stronger web presence. In this way, a person who wants to learn more about a particular topic may turn to the museum’s website, allowing the museum to better serve as an informational resource.

The very components of a natural history museum that distinguish it from other kinds of museums or institutions of informal learning are not necessarily obvious to its audience, as suggested here. If the museum wants people to recognize its traditional role(s) within society, it may need to make these messages more explicit. Conversely, those considering reinventing the natural history museum to create a new format for promoting new messages and addressing the needs of the audience may need to consider the extent to which hundreds of years of institutional tradition, and a perspective shared by curators and others whose responsibilities are based on that tradition, can be easily modified.

 

James Kisiel is Assistant Professor, California State University, Long Beach, and Research Associate, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. He may be reached at jkisiel@csulb.edu.